The AICTE Act, 1987 and its regulations govern the age of superannuation for teachers in diploma level technical institutions, superseding conflicting rules and regulations of individual institutions.

JUDGMENT

B. R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in pay scale of Rs. 525-1150/- with D.A. and A.D.A under the Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology (SMIT), has filed this application to quash the notice dated 25.05.2006 issued by opposite party No.5 in Annexure-4 to superannuate him from service, on attaining the age of 58 years, with effect from 15.07.2006/31.07.2006 whichever is later, and consequential order of rejection of his representation dated 30.05.2006 communicated to him in Annexure-9 dated 07.06.2006.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, having acquired M.Phil. Degree, was selected and appointed on 06.08.1982 as Lecturer in Physics in the SMIT in pay scale of Rs. 525-1150/- with D.A. and A.D.A. as admissible to the Government servants of the State. Thereafter, considering his qualification, vide order dated 21.09.1983, the authority granted him UGC scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600/-. Keeping in view his experience, on 17.01.2006, opposite party No.5 directed the petitioner to remain in-charge of Principal, Diploma Wing of SMIT. Subsequently, in continuation of the order dated 17.01.2006, the petitioner was allowed to continue as regular Principal vide order dated 24.01.2006. While he was so continuing, a notice was issued on 25.05.2006 intimating him that he would be relieved from service of SMIT on attaining the age of 58 years. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 30.05.2006 stating inter alia that he was to continue in service, till he attained the age of 60 years, as per the rules framed by the SMIT, or as per the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), he was to continue till he attained the age of 62 years. On consideration of such representation, the authority passed order dated 07.06.2006 holding good the notice of retirement of the petitioner from service issued vide letter dated 25.05.2006, meaning thereby, the petitioner has to be retired at the age of 58 years. Hence, this application.

3. Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel appea-ring on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after the appointment of the petitioner on 06.08.1982, an advertisement to fill up some teaching posts in SMIT was issued on 07.07.1989 in Annexure-6 wherein the retirement age was mentioned as 60 years. Though the petitioner's post was not advertised, but similarly situated posts were advertised and the age of retirement was fixed as 60 years. The SMIT also framed Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules wherein the retirement age was fixed as 60 years. It is contended that since SMIT is a diploma level technical institute, as per Clause-12.0 of the AICTE Revised Pay Scale and Service Conditions, the age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level technical institutions would be 62 years. Therefore, the notice issued directing the petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Consequentially, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit in accordance with law.

4. Mr. L. Samantray, learned counsel appearing for opposite partie Nos.4 and 5 contended that pursuant to the notice in Annexure-4 dated 25.05.2006 and rejection of representation dated 30.05.2006 communicated vide letter dated 07.06.2006, the petitioner was to retire at the age of 58 years and thereby the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of continuing in service up to the age of 60 years. It is further contended that on 20.07.1990 a notification was issued amending Rules-3(i) and 7 of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules prepared by the SMIT where the age of retirement of the employee was fixed to 58 years. Therefore, once Rule-3(i) has been amended fixing the age of retirement to 58 years, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of continuance in service up to the age of 60 years. It is further contended that in case of similarly s